Search

Context: Palliative care is known to improve patients' quality of life, but oftentimes these conversations occur outside of the health-care setting., Objectives: To characterize the #PalliativeCare Twitter network and evaluate the caregiver experience within palliative care., Methods: In this cross-sectional study, a total of 182,661 #PalliativeCare tweets by 26,837 users from June 1, 2015 to June 1, 2019 were analyzed using Symplur Signals. Analysis included activity metrics, content analysis, user characteristics, engagement, and network analysis. Similar metrics were performed on tweets by self-identified caregivers (482), who wrote a total of 3952 tweets. Qualitative analysis was completed on a systematic sample of caregiver tweets., Results: The number of #PalliativeCare tweets, users, and impressions has increased by an annual average of 18.7%, 16.4%, and 32.5%, respectively. Support, access, and patients were among the Trending Terms. About 39.4% of Trending Articles were scientifically valid, and information about palliative care and comorbidities had the greatest number of articles. The majority of users wrote five or less #PalliativeCare tweets. Network analysis revealed central hubs to be palliative care advocacy organizations and physicians. The five main themes from qualitative analysis of caregiver tweets were 1) advocacy and events, 2) care strategies, 3) resources, 4) public health issues, and 5) myths related to palliative care., Conclusion: The use of Twitter as a platform for palliative care conversations is growing rapidly. Twitter serves as a platform to facilitate #PalliativeCare conversation among patients, caregivers, physicians, and other healthcare providers., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Twitter may reflect attitudes underrepresented in traditional surveys. This study aimed to understand professionals' and patients' thoughts regarding brachytherapy on Twitter., Methods and Materials: Twitter was queried with "brachytherapy" to identify all tweets about patients' experiences from January 2012 to May 2017. A random sample of tweets by health care professionals containing "brachytherapy" was obtained using the first weekly tweet in the same interval. Consensus coding was used to categorize tweets as "patient" or "professional" based on content about receiving brachytherapy or self-identification as a health care professional. Tweets were analyzed for positive, neutral, or negative sentiment and recurrent themes using manual, iterative coding. Patient tweets were analyzed for whether they were shared before or after treatment and whether the patient, friends, or family had posted them. Professional tweets were analyzed to identify temporal theme changes., Results: One hundred sixty-two patient tweets and 260 professional tweets were obtained from January 2012 to May 2017. On average, 2.5 patient tweets were shared monthly compared to 69 for providers. Among tweets by patients and professionals, 57% vs. 12% expressed positive sentiment, 21% vs. 3% negative sentiment, and 22% vs. 85% neutral sentiment, respectively. The most common patient and professional codes were "general sharing of experience/casual conversation" (32%) and "science" (21%), respectively., Conclusions: Patients tweeted less about brachytherapy than professionals and generally expressed favorable and negative sentiments regarding their radiation treatment experiences. Professionals tended to express neutral sentiment and focus on research. Opportunities exist for greater radiation oncologist engagement in this medium., (Copyright © 2018 American Brachytherapy Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Google is the most popular search engine in the United States, and patients are increasingly relying on online webpages to seek information about individual physicians. This study aims to characterize what patients find when they search for radiation oncologists online.Methods and Materials: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Comparable Downloadable File was used to identify all Medicare-participating radiation oncologists in the United States and Puerto Rico. Each radiation oncologist was characterized by medical school education, year of graduation, city of practice, gender, and affiliation with an academic institution. Using a custom Google-based search engine, up to the top 10 search results for each physician were extracted and categorized as relating to: (1) physician, hospital, or health care system; (2) third-party; (3) social media; (4) academic journal articles; or (5) other.Results: Among all health care providers in the United States within CMS, 4443 self-identified as being radiation oncologists and yielded 40,764 search results. Of those, 1161 (26.1%) and 3282 (73.9%) were classified as academic and nonacademic radiation oncologists, respectively. At least 1 search result was obtained for 4398 physicians (99.0%). Physician, hospital, and health care-controlled websites (16,006; 39.3%) and third-party websites (10,494; 25.7%) were the 2 most often observed domain types. Social media platforms accounted for 2729 (6.7%) hits, and peer-reviewed academic journal websites accounted for 1397 (3.4%) results. About 6.8% and 6.7% of the top 10 links were social media websites for academic and nonacademic radiation oncologists, respectively.Conclusions: Most radiation oncologists lack self-controlled online content when patients search within the first page of Google search results. With the strong presence of third-party websites and lack of social media, opportunities exist for radiation oncologists to increase their online presence to improve patient-provider communication and better the image of the overall field. We discuss strategies to improve online visibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]